It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 92
31
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


A grizzly bear had sex with a polar bear. What needs to be explained? THEY ARE BOTH BEARS! It's humans causing problems with the enviroment that probably caused them to be together. Ice melting, so polar bears are moving out and kodiac bears are moving in.

Its just like an american human having sex with a japanese human. They are both human. You just end up with a mix of the two.

Did this really make you think evolution exists? They started as bears, they mixed breeds, and you still have bears. Humans are not monkeys FYI.
edit on 2-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



A grizzly bear had sex with a polar bear. What needs to be explained? THEY ARE BOTH BEARS! It's humans causing problems with the enviroment that probably caused them to be together. Ice melting, so polar bears are moving out and kodiac bears are moving in.

But if all life was created as is how do you explain distinct animals being able to not only produce hybrids but hybrids that can reproduce?
It matters little what is causing the ice caps to melt, their enviroment is changing and so the species are changing as a result. Polar bears are not 'Moving out'. Kodiac Bears are not 'moving in' The two species are merging just as we did with the neanderthals.


Its just like an american human having sex with a japanese human. They are both human. You just end up with a mix of the two.

No it is nothing like an american having sex with a Japanese. As you say they are both humans, the same species. The bears on the otherhand are not but have not evolved passed a point where they cannot breed together to produce viable young. Just as DNA has shown us with the neandethals which blows your 'we were brought here by aliens out of the water.


Did this really make you think evolution exists? They started as bears, they mixed breeds, and you still have bears. Humans are not monkeys FYI.

I know evolution is the process that describes the diversity we see. We have evidence and we see it in action both in the fossil records and in life today backed up by DNA, If the result of the two distinct species of bears merging is an animal that can survive in the new enviroment being formed a new distinct species will result given time.

And for the last time FYI I know humans are not monkeys as evolution shows we share a common ancestor with the other great apes. So please, if you are intent on trying to debate evolution even if you believe it is wrong at least get the basics of what it says correct before you try to debunk it.

Like it or not the evidence to back up evolution is overwhelming and the evidence to show aliens did it has none at all. You do however have something in common with monkeys. You see no evidence, Hear no evidence and speak with no evidence.


edit on 2-12-2011 by colin42 because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



A grizzly bear had sex with a polar bear. What needs to be explained? THEY ARE BOTH BEARS! It's humans causing problems with the enviroment that probably caused them to be together. Ice melting, so polar bears are moving out and kodiac bears are moving in.

But if all life was created as is how do you explain distinct animals being able to not only produce hybrids but hybrids that can reproduce?
It matters little what is causing the ice caps to melt, their enviroment is changing and so the species are changing as a result. Polar bears are not 'Moving out'. Kodiac Bears are not 'moving in' The two species are merging just as we did with the neanderthals.


Its just like an american human having sex with a japanese human. They are both human. You just end up with a mix of the two.

No it is nothing like an american having sex with a Japanese. As you say they are both humans, the same species. The bears on the otherhand are not but have not evolved passed a point where they cannot breed together to produce viable young. Just as DNA has shown us with the neandethals which blows your 'we were brought here by aliens out of the water.


Did this really make you think evolution exists? They started as bears, they mixed breeds, and you still have bears. Humans are not monkeys FYI.

I know evolution is the process that describes the diversity we see. We have evidence and we see it in action both in the fossil records and in life today backed up by DNA, If the result of the two distinct species of bears merging is an animal that can survive in the new enviroment being formed a new distinct species will result given time.

And for the last time FYI I know humans are not monkeys as evolution shows we share a common ancestor with the other great apes. So please, if you are intent on trying to debate evolution even if you believe it is wrong at least get the basics of what it says correct before you try to debunk it.

Like it or not the evidence to back up evolution is overwhelming and the evidence to show aliens did it has none at all. You do however have something in common with monkeys. You see no evidence, Hear no evidence and speak with no evidence.


edit on 2-12-2011 by colin42 because: Spelling


A Grissly and a Polar bear are the same species. The polar bear has just adapted to it's environment. I wear shorts and a T Shirt during winter on the Gold Coast of Australia. A New yorker is rugged up to the max during winter but it doesn't mean the we couldn't get it on and have a viable offspring. If we were bare naked humans living in the wild the New yorker would get fatter during winter than I would on the Gold coast simply because it's colder. And when the New yorker went hunting she's have to dress in white to blend in as where I'd have to cover myself in a colour that blends into the greener background.

What you see with the Grissly and the Polar bear is the same animal dressed differently.

Go to your local seaseaworld or zoo and ask. But because the climate is changing the Grissly and the Polar are now sharing the same hunting ground and producing pisslys'

A Grissly and a Panda, though both bears, could not produce a vaible offspring because they're of a different species. A male donkey and a female horse can produce a mule but that mule can't reproduce because the donkey and horse are of a different species and therefore the mule is not a viable offspring.
edit on 2-12-2011 by steveknows because: Typo



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





But if all life was created as is how do you explain distinct animals being able to not only produce hybrids but hybrids that can reproduce?
It matters little what is causing the ice caps to melt, their enviroment is changing and so the species are changing as a result. Polar bears are not 'Moving out'. Kodiac Bears are not 'moving in' The two species are merging just as we did with the neanderthals.
Please show me an example of an animal hybriding out of its own species. Bears making bears is still in the same species. Now if it were bears mutating to bigfoot, well then something is going on.




No it is nothing like an american having sex with a Japanese. As you say they are both humans, the same species. The bears on the otherhand are not but have not evolved passed a point where they cannot breed together to produce viable young. Just as DNA has shown us with the neandethals which blows your 'we were brought here by aliens out of the water.
So now your going to explain to me how it is that bears are not the same as bears? Also FYI this all has nothing to do with natural selection that evolution is supposedly based on. It's just different breeds of bears mixing.




I know evolution is the process that describes the diversity we see.
There is no proof of that and it could just as easily be a creator doing it all.




We have evidence and we see it in action both in the fossil records and in life today backed up by DNA, If the result of the two distinct species of bears merging is an animal that can survive in the new enviroment being formed a new distinct species will result given time.
Theorys are not considered evidence and just because one human has blue eyes and another has brown eyes does not make them different species. Thats all microevolution is. It's permissable variables within the species. The keyword here is within, because if it ever goes outside of the species it dies out.




And for the last time FYI I know humans are not monkeys as evolution shows we share a common ancestor with the other great apes. So please, if you are intent on trying to debate evolution even if you believe it is wrong at least get the basics of what it says correct before you try to debunk it.
This common ancestor that you tout is nothing more than a simmularity in DNA. So 97% of our DNA matches with primates, thats only millions of genes, millions. We also share 70% with rats but we look nothing like them.




Like it or not the evidence to back up evolution is overwhelming and the evidence to show aliens did it has none at all. You do however have something in common with monkeys. You see no evidence, Hear no evidence and speak with no evidence.
We have biblical books written saying aliens did it. While I see no evolution,
edit on 2-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Think in chromosomes. If your species has developed chromosomes of a different count and variety, then it will no longer be able to breed with the gene group it is separate from. This is not very complicated thinking.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


So it would die because it has nothing to breed with.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


greatbear.org...

Different species means just that, not same animal in different clothes. I do agree with you that the enviroment is affecting change and as I said they can breed because they have not diverged that far but it is not far off as the polar bear and grizzly breed season only just matches.

Only a slight change to the breeding cycle would mean they would no longer mix and given time no longer be able to produce viable offspring.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 



Please show me an example of an animal hybriding out of its own species. Bears making bears is still in the same species. Now if it were bears mutating to bigfoot, well then something is going on.
Yep another thick reply. You really need to understand evolution before you attack it. Here is the monkey that will not hear.



Please show me an example of an animal hybriding out of its own species. Bears making bears is still in the same species. Now if it were bears mutating to bigfoot, well then something is going on.
Here is the monkey that will not see coming into place



There is no proof of that and it could just as easily be a creator doing it all.
There is a shed load of proof. You just will not look at it.

Now get this, last time. Evolution does not explain creation. This is your view and this thread is about those that deny evolution explain the diversity we see. You want to talk about a creator go ahead but do not include evolution.



This common ancestor that you tout is nothing more than a simmularity in DNA. So 97% of our DNA matches with primates, thats only millions of genes, millions. We also share 70% with rats but we look nothing like them.


See no evidence monkey again. 70% difference with a rat. Have you ever looked at a rat? We have loads of common organs, limbs skeleton. But you say 70% shows no simularities and then say we are not related because we have 3% difference with other primates. There is a hell of a difference with 3% and 30%.

The common ancestor you refuse to aknowledge is backed up by evidence. It does appear though that you do understand what evolution says you just refuse like a child to use it when trying to argue your point. The hear no evil monkey again.




We have biblical books written saying aliens did it. While I see no evolution,
Yes and you have so many all saying different things. Many that follow that path would put you to death for saying Aliens did it. Your guilty of making false idols. You would be tried, found guilty and executed by others that cannot show evidence of their beliefs but would hold you guilty anyway

You have translated your big book (version unknown) to suit your belief and have required no evidence to back it up. The reason for this is because if you ever did look for evidence your little theory would fold up like a house of cards


edit on 3-12-2011 by colin42 because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Varemia
 


So it would die because it has nothing to breed with.


Basically, which has happened thousands of times and continues to happen to this day. It's a natural occurrence when creatures that have separated from the breeding patterns experience an extinction event. Sometimes the creatures survive and propagate a very different species after enough time. Other times they just die off.

You seem to place an ideal on evolution and survival and is completely untrue. There is nothing glamorous or friendly about it. It is actually a very cruel system of death and disease, mutation and selection.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Think in chromosomes. If your species has developed chromosomes of a different count and variety, then it will no longer be able to breed with the gene group it is separate from. This is not very complicated thinking.
No I understand what your saying but there is no need for a bear to develope different chromosomes and if it does it would die, quickly. Even if it didn't die, it would then have the problem of finding one it could mate with.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 





Yep another thick reply. You really need to understand evolution before you attack it. Here is the monkey that will not hear.
I'm sure I understand it just fine.




Here is the monkey that will not see coming into place
Rather than offer me a link or an example this is what you send. Is it perhaps because there is no such thing?




There is a shed load of proof. You just will not look at it.

Now get this, last time. Evolution does not explain creation. This is your view and this thread is about those that deny evolution explain the diversity we see. You want to talk about a creator go ahead but do not include evolution.
No your missunderstanding me, creation could explain some things your mistaking as evolution.




See no evidence monkey again. 70% difference with a rat. Have you ever looked at a rat? We have loads of common organs, limbs skeleton. But you say 70% shows no simularities and then say we are not related because we have 3% difference with other primates. There is a hell of a difference with 3% and 30%.
My point was that even at 70% I fail to see a connection other than eyes, nose, mouth, ears, teeth, and he breaths air. Yet 70% is a lot by comparison




The common ancestor you refuse to aknowledge is backed up by evidence. It does appear though that you do understand what evolution says you just refuse like a child to use it when trying to argue your point. The hear no evil monkey again.
There has never been a proven common ancestor, its just overlap. This whole thing is based on a theory that would take trillions of years to process.




Yes and you have so many all saying different things. Many that follow that path would put you to death for saying Aliens did it. Your guilty of making false idols. You would be tried, found guilty and executed by others that cannot show evidence of their beliefs but would hold you guilty anyway
True which is why I believe the bible is simply missunderstood, and taken out of context. I believe its a book of intervention, not faith and religion.




You have translated your big book (version unknown) to suit your belief and have required no evidence to back it up. The reason for this is because if you ever did look for evidence your little theory would fold up like a house of cards
Actually just the opposite. In fact a coworker of mine that believes in evolution told me intervention actually sounds more plausable than christianity. I went over most of the findings with him and he agrees with me.

If you read a bible from the christianity point of view you will be tossed and confused with many things left unanswered. Not me, when I look at it from the intervention point of view, everything comes into focus and all those weird magic things are within realitys grasp.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


Not necessarily. If the change is gradual enough and the gene groups separate enough, then the mutation will only affect those present in the mutated group. The other group will retain the original chromosome orientation, and then after enough time, the one that changed will change more and be unable to breed with the other.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Basically, which has happened thousands of times and continues to happen to this day. It's a natural occurrence when creatures that have separated from the breeding patterns experience an extinction event. Sometimes the creatures survive and propagate a very different species after enough time. Other times they just die off.
It makes no sense, there are no sol survivors that we have ever been able to find in bones or fossils. And if we did they could just as easily have always been another species all along.




You seem to place an ideal on evolution and survival and is completely untrue. There is nothing glamorous or friendly about it. It is actually a very cruel system of death and disease, mutation and selection.
And do you think that humans are a bi product of this occurance?



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 

Nope you dont understand it at all. Like I said you are the three unwise monkeys rolled into one. You dont understand evolution at all and until you do you will fail to argue against it as you have in every post you make.

The sadest thing of all is you have not taken one thing on board. That does not mean accept it that means argue from a point of knowledge.

You continue to talk utter rubbish but your holeless theory cannot explain diversity in any way. How sad.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
And do you think that humans are a bi product of this occurance?


Absolutely. There is one variation of human known as Homo-floresiensus. It was a species of human that survived on an island for a very long time, and as a result were affected by island dwarfism. Later human settlers still have legends about the "little people" that lived on the island, but so far it seems that they died out.

But really, humans are clearly the result of a combined chromosome from the apes. That is basically undeniable. We have over a dozen transition fossils, and just so you know, species distinctions are not so easy when it comes to some fossils.

You see, when creatures began to develop mammal traits, they weren't just suddenly mammals. Different traits slowly adapted over time. We actually have dozens of fossils that we technically can't classify as mammal or reptile because they are a blend. You don't get more transitional than that.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Well thats true, my only claim is that humans did not originate from earth, just like it tells us in the bible.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


Just becuase I don't hear it, see it, and smell it doesn't mean its there. I think I understand it, but don't accept it, there is a difference.
edit on 3-12-2011 by itsthetooth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Well thats true, my only claim is that humans did not originate from earth, just like it tells us in the bible.


Well, if the bible was a piece of evidence, then we could take it seriously. Being that it is a story, told and pieced together by many different people I don't think any rational person would use it as evidence. Try providing evidence that shows humans did not originate here.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 





Absolutely. There is one variation of human known as Homo-floresiensus. It was a species of human that survived on an island for a very long time, and as a result were affected by island dwarfism. Later human settlers still have legends about the "little people" that lived on the island, but so far it seems that they died out.
Whats odd is there are small people today, makes you wonder.




But really, humans are clearly the result of a combined chromosome from the apes. That is basically undeniable. We have over a dozen transition fossils, and just so you know, species distinctions are not so easy when it comes to some fossils.
Now how do you not know that apes evolved from humans?




You see, when creatures began to develop mammal traits, they weren't just suddenly mammals. Different traits slowly adapted over time. We actually have dozens of fossils that we technically can't classify as mammal or reptile because they are a blend. You don't get more transitional than that.
I would just think those are other species, not necessarily other mixes.

Seeing how we don't have any official crossbred species, I think this just sounds more and more like a theory. For example the bear page I looked at is nothing more than bears mixing with other bears.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 





Whats odd is there are small people today, makes you wonder.


3 feet tall? Even if there are, there being some today is irrelevant and in no way proves anything he says to be wrong. You can argue that midgets are around, but then again, that is a health issue rather than a result of being isolated on an island.




I would just think those are other species, not necessarily other mixes.


The fact that they are something different than the initial species means that they are a different species. I am quite sure he is aware of that.




Seeing how we don't have any official crossbred species, I think this just sounds more and more like a theory.


Please don't pull that card... It makes you look silly. The whole, "it's just a theory" argument does not work. It has been shown on here, I don't know how many times, yet some people don't listen. Heliocentricism is JUST a theory. If you want to debate that, go ahead.
edit on 3-12-2011 by Tony4211 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 89  90  91    93  94  95 >>

log in

join